shape
carat
color
clarity

My Experience with Lockes

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

Demelza

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 18, 2004
Messages
2,325
When I saw Sunkist’s thread yesterday, I was very tempted to speak up about my own experience with Lockes and their Signature Setting. I wanted to wait, though, until all my issues with them were resolved. Now that they are, I thought it might be helpful for others to hear what I’ve been through in case they are considering purchasing from this company. Please note, of course, that I am just one customer and this is simply one experience. I wasn’t going to say anything at all until I saw that Sunkist is having the exact same issues with her mounting that I had with mine. My goal is not to be vindictive, as I’m sure Lockes has many happy customers; I just want others to know of my experience in case it is in some way helpful or instructive.

Here’s my story – sorry if it’s a bit long:

I’d always loved the Lockes mounting, and, about 2 1/2 months ago, I decided to treat myself as a combo birthday/”having a baby” present. I went through the whole rigmarole of getting my diamond approved, signing (reluctantly) the liability waiver releasing Lockes from responsibility for my diamond during the setting process, and driving 100 miles roundtrip over the US border to ship my stone.

Happily, the first ring was done faster than promised; much to my dismay, however, I could see immediately upon opening the box that the head was visibly crooked on the shank and the prongs uneven. There were a few other issues, but the two mentioned above were the most troubling. I hemmed and hawed all weekend, wondering whether maybe I was being too picky. Then I realized that, for that kind of money, at the very least the head and prongs should be symmetrical. Lockes was very apologetic, offered to remake the ring, and promised to get it back to me ASAP. And true to their word, a week later, it was done. This time, however, I decided to have it sent to Rich Sherwood for evaluation and appraisal.

When I received Rich’s detailed report on the second mounting, my jaw hit the floor. This ring had the exact same problems as the first one (and then some) – crooked head, uneven prongs, sloppy finish in the scalloped area at the base of the head. According to Rich’s report, the stone wasn’t even set safely in the prongs!!!! I was horrified and immediately forwarded Rich’s findings to Lockes. They, in turn, expressed their outrage and made me a very tempting and generous offer – they would refund my money AND make me a new mounting free of charge. Sounds amazing, right? I struggled with the decision, though, because it meant exposing myself to the risk of damage to my stone (however small) a third time, and, because, at that point, I had very little faith in their ability to turn out a fine setting. The manager, however, assured me she would personally see the project through from start to finish and that I had absolutely nothing to worry about. I believed her and had Rich send them my stone yet again.

At that point, I was told that it would be somewhere in the ballpark of another 5 weeks before my ring would be ready! That put me very close to the baby’s due date, which would be totally irrelevant if it weren’t for the fact that, in order to pick up my ring, I have to drive 100 miles roundtrip across the US border. This is my first child, but I imagine that might be very difficult with a newborn in the car. At this point, however, I had already sent them my stone and decided just to be patient and let them do their thing.

After about 4 weeks with not a word from anyone at Lockes, I contacted the manager again to try to get a firm date of completion. After several emails, I learned that the manager who was supposed to oversee my project had been fired about a month ago! This, of course, made me very anxious since it was her assurance that she would personally monitor the remake that made me decide to greenlight the project in the first place. The new manager assured me that all would be well and that Lockes only employs master jewelers with many years experience. This was only mildly reassuring – if their jewelers were so skilled, how did they allow the first 2 mountings to leave the bench? Moreover, I still didn’t have a firm date of completion and I was becoming increasingly uneasy with the company as a whole.

Then I woke up yesterday morning to find Sunkist’s thread and just about had a heart attack when I saw that her mounting was plagued with the exact same problems mine were. My gut feeling was that I should just cut my losses and take my business elsewhere. While their offer to remake the ring for free was amazing, it simply wasn’t worth the risk to my stone, and, perhaps more importantly, my sanity. So, yesterday, I told them thanks but no thanks.

Now, nearly 3 months after I originally sent my diamond away, I’m still without a mounting. I’d rather that, though, than being without a mounting AND without a stone because something happened to it during the setting process. I realize the likelihood of damage during the setting process is very, very slim and that very few companies take responsibility for setting diamonds purchased elsewhere, but once you lose faith in a company, it’s hard to relax when they have your precious diamond in their care.

Sorry for the long post – I just wanted to relay my experience in case it’s helpful either for Sunkist or for future consumers. I’m sure Lockes has many happy customers; I’m just not one of them.

I would also like to take this opportunity to say what a fabulous, diligent, and caring appraiser Rich Sherwood is. I’m sure this comes as no surprise to anyone who’s hung around here for any length of time, but he did a fantastic job and really looked out for my best interest. He really goes above and beyond, and, for that, I am truly grateful.
 
Demelza, I didn't know you had changed your setting! That's a horrible experience, especially the lack of communication when they had a very large (and beautiful) diamond in their possession. I hope that you get your stone back as soon as possible. I know what a hassle it is to send jewelery over the border, so I feel for you.

I think the Locke's solitaire setting is beautiful. But your solitaire setting is one of my favorites on PS. In any case, hope this is resolved promptly.
 
OHMYWORD! THAT is an almost-unbelievable story, Dem! Good grief, they made, approved (?!) and SENT TWO faulty rings??! It's no wonder you have zero confidence in them and almost lost your sanity!
2.gif
The offer of a free ring would sure be tempting, but I can totally understand your deciding what you did. It seems from the other posters who have gone through Lockes that there is an AWFUL lot of staff turnover mentioned, too. That can raise a few red flags.

Do you have any photos of the two mountings that you could post?

ETA: Hopefully Diamondlove will chime in here... I wonder if she is totally satisfied with her setting? Who else has gotten the Lockes signature setting?
 
Demelza: I am so sorry you had such major issues with Lockes! Honestly for the amount of money that one might spend there, I would have thought the workmanship and customer service would have been much better. And I definitely understand your reluctance in continuing to work with them. Gosh, I hope you can get the setting of your dreams soon. You deserve to WEAR your diamond!
 
Date: 10/17/2006 4:17:22 PM
Author: onedrop

...Honestly for the amount of money that one might spend there, I would have thought the workmanship and customer service would have been much better...
I know, Onedrop, that''s just what I was thinking. This is no bargain-budget setting from some obscure low-end manufacturing house. Dem had every right to expect fine quality and exquisite workmanship. It''s their "signature setting" for Pete''s sake. (Although just try to find information on it on their web-site!
20.gif
)

Unbelievable, just unbelievable!
 
Lynn -- Here''s a picture that shows how the head lists to the right. I don''t know how well it shows up in photographs, but it was pretty obvious to me when I opened the box. This is a picture of the first mounting.

Allycat -- Thanks for the support! Trying to deal with cross-border shipping is a HUGE pain, isn''t it??

Lockes0001_3.JPG
 
Demelza,

Well I see that the head tilts to the right. I find though that tilting, or off things in a setting are much more apparent in real like then in pictures. BUt two rings?? I''d be really angry. Especially driving back and forth over the border. Have you recieved your diamond yet? Or do they still have it? It would make me crazy if I was 2-3 weeks without a word about an unset stone.
 
Ohmyword. That photo clearly shows the asymmetry, and the table of the diamond is obviously tilted. You must have felt *SICK* when you saw it.

Do you have more photos you can post? Any of the second setting?
 
Thank you for sharing your story. While I am sorry that you had such a negative experience with Lockes, hopefully other customers will benefit from this advice and Lockes will get their act together.
 
Clearly from the first pic, the head is askew. I can understand the first mix-up but for them to get wrong a second time just doesn''t make much sense to me.
5.gif
 
Date: 10/17/2006 4:27:11 PM
Author: kcoursolle

Thank you for sharing your story. While I am sorry that you had such a negative experience with Lockes, hopefully other customers will benefit from this advice and Lockes will get their act together.
I agree... Lockes needs to get their act together alright. That is a STUNNING solitaire, one of my all-time EVER, but their QC (or rather, LACK of it) is just unbelievable.
 
I really appreciate everyone's support and understanding. It has been a very trying experience and I'm glad things are resolved. Lockes no longer has my stone; I had them send it to another company with whom I will be working on a new mounting.

Honestly, I feel very mixed about posting. Clearly, they did try to make things right for me and their offer to remake the ring for free was quite generous. At the same time, I feel that they really dropped the ball, and, when I saw that Sunkist was experiencing something similar, I realized how invaluable it would have been for me to see a thread like this one. There isn't much information out there about Lockes -- most of it is on this board, and, up until now, most of it is quite good. That is why I decided to entrust them with my stone. I do, however, think it's important for all experiences to be represented here so that consumers have a balanced, realistic view of any company's strong and not-so-strong points. Hopefully that's what I'm doing here.
 
Wow Demelza, I had no idea. I''m really glad you shared your story. I hope you get your perfect setting soon, whatever that may be. I can''t believe they made two faulty settings. I''m glad you had Richards helpful eyes through all of this. They really need to clean up their act. That setting is gorgeous, when done right. Sheesh, so sorry.
14.gif
 
Date: 10/17/2006 4:47:58 PM
Author: Demelza
I really appreciate everyone's support and understanding. It has been a very trying experience and I'm glad things are resolved. Lockes no longer has my stone; I had them send it to another company with whom I will be working on a new mounting.

Honestly, I feel very mixed about posting. Clearly, they did try to make things right for me and their offer to remake the ring for free was quite generous. At the same time, I feel that they really dropped the ball, and, when I saw that Sunkist was experiencing something similar, I realized how invaluable it would have been for me to see a thread like this one. There isn't much information out there about Lockes -- most of it is on this board, and, up until now, most of it is quite good. That is why I decided to entrust them with my stone. I do, however, think it's important for all experiences to be represented here so that consumers have a balanced, realistic view of any company's strong and not-so-strong points. Hopefully that's what I'm doing here.
Dem, do NOT feel bad for posting about your experience with Lockes! This is (IMHO) exactly what consumer-driven forums like PS are for.
 
Date: 10/17/2006 4:27:07 PM
Author: Lynn B
Ohmyword. That photo clearly shows the asymmetry, and the table of the diamond is obviously tilted. You must have felt *SICK* when you saw it.


Do you have more photos you can post? Any of the second setting?

Lynn -- I never saw the second mounting since it went directly to Rich for appraisal. I do have the photos he took. Apparently, it's dangerous to have the pavilion of the diamond resting on the prongs the way it is in the pics below. I think it leaves the stone vulnerable in case there is a blow in that direction. The second head appears slightly less tilted than the first one, but it's still not totally straight. I could live with a rough finish in the scalloped areas at the base of the head, but I am really picky when it comes to asymmetry of any kind. That's really my pet peeve. Oh, and, of course, it's always good to feel that the stone is safe in the setting!

SGLLOCKES0001.JPG
 
Hey Dem,

Well, I for one am soooo sorry you had not one but two poorly made settings. I am however soooo happy you decided to share your story. I know how difficult it is to post negative things and yet when we don''t other folks rely solely on the positive and really do need all the info in order to make a decision that might be best for us. I''m so glad you''re getting your stone back safe and sound. That God for Richard sherwood too.
 
Demelza, I'm really sorry to hear your story. It should be such a happy experience.

I would have done the same thing, and at least you have your diamond in tact, and are out no money.

Good luck in your search for a new setting!

ETA, I see you found a setting co. Good luck!
 
Demelza, I feel that your posting this was extremely important. A few weeks ago I was very, very close to ordering that setting. I had the paperwork to fax and everything. I cannot tell you what made me change my mind. I think it was just providential! It really blows me away that this very gorgeous setting is not being made correctly after Matatora and DL got theirs. It makes one wonder if the one who had made it has also left and someone with less skill is trying to reproduce it.

I am sorry for all the trouble you''ve experienced. I hope the next setting turns out to be perfect! Can you tell us what you''ve chosen? I think you have such excellent taste in solitaire settings!
 
Date: 10/17/2006 5:01:06 PM
Author: Demelza

Lynn -- I never saw the second mounting since it went directly to Rich for appraisal. I do have the photos he took. Apparently, it''s dangerous to have the pavilion of the diamond resting on the prongs the way it is in the pics below. I think it leaves the stone vulnerable in case there is a blow in that direction. The second head appears slightly less tilted than the first one, but it''s still not totally straight. I could live with a rough finish in the scalloped areas at the base of the head, but I am really picky when it comes to asymmetry of any kind. That''s really my pet peeve. Oh, and, of course, it''s always good to feel that the stone is safe in the setting!
Wow, Dem, those are some powerful photos. I see what you mean about the pav of the diamond being right up against the prong(s), and how the head is (again) slightly askew. And at least one prong isn''t even touching the top of the diamond. The roughness along the "scallops" would drive me batty, too, it really would. I can''t stand anything rough or "unfinished" looking! I just have to say it again - unbelievable! Oh, and let me add, inexcusable!
 
Date: 10/17/2006 5:10:50 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Demelza, I feel that your posting this was extremely important. A few weeks ago I was very, very close to ordering that setting. I had the paperwork to fax and everything. I cannot tell you what made me change my mind. I think it was just providential! It really blows me away that this very gorgeous setting is not being made correctly after Matatora and DL got theirs. It makes one wonder if the one who had made it has also left and someone with less skill is trying to reproduce it.

I am sorry for all the trouble you''ve experienced. I hope the next setting turns out to be perfect! Can you tell us what you''ve chosen? I think you have such excellent taste in solitaire settings!
I have never been in touch with Lockes, so anyone who has, please feel free to correct me if I''m wrong... but aren''t they awfully snooty?! Don''t they make a pretty big deal about "approving" a diamond before they will agree to even set it in their "signature setting", and didn''t Sunkist almost not get her killer K stone approved? It sounded to me like they didn''t care much about the cut or beauty of her stone, just the color?! And wasn''t there something about them saying they wouldn''t stamp it inside with their name (because it was a K color stone), then they went and stamped it anyway??! I don''t know, to me it just doesn''t sound like the left hand knows what the right hand is doing over there. Which is a darn shame, because that really can be one GORGEOUS ring, for sure.
 
Date: 10/17/2006 5:17:18 PM
Author: Lynn B

I have never been in touch with Lockes, so anyone who has, please feel free to correct me if I''m wrong... but aren''t they awfully snooty?! Don''t they make a pretty big deal about ''approving'' a diamond before they will agree to even set it in their ''signature setting'', and didn''t Sunkist almost not get her killer K stone approved? It sounded to me like they didn''t care much about the cut or beauty of her stone, just the color?! And wasn''t there something about them saying they wouldn''t stamp it inside with their name (because it was a K color stone), then they went and stamped it anyway??! I don''t know, to me it just doesn''t sound like the left hand knows what the right hand is doing over there. Which is a darn shame, because that really can be one GORGEOUS ring, for sure.
Lynn, I''d have to say they were nice to me. I think the stone approval thing is equivalent to the fact that Tiffany doesn''t have stones less than I VS2. I realize they could never be as exclusive as Tiffany''s, but I can see that they might want to have some sort of cut off or else they could find themselves setting average cut, K, I1''s in their formerly fine setting. I think Beaudry and some other designers are the same way with not stamping the ring when you provide the stone. So I don''t see anything wrong with that. They really didn''t give me any problem about my stone. But that''s all I can say. I stopped, thank goodness, before experiencing the trauma Dem and now Sunkist are having.
 
Date: 10/17/2006 5:26:27 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Lynn, I'd have to say they were nice to me. I think the stone approval thing is equivalent to the fact that Tiffany doesn't have stones less than I VS2. I realize they could never be as exclusive as Tiffany's, but I can see that they might want to have some sort of cut off or else they could find themselves setting average cut, K, I1's in their formerly fine setting. I think Beaudry and some other designers are the same way with not stamping the ring when you provide the stone. So I don't see anything wrong with that. They really didn't give me any problem about my stone. But that's all I can say. I stopped, thank goodness, before experiencing the trauma Dem and now Sunkist are having.
Yes, I do see what you are saying.

I was mainly thinking about the inconsistencies, though... if memory serves me (which is not guaranteed!
2.gif
) Lockes said yes to Sunkist's stone, then reneged, then after she pressed it a little (and was so worried in the meantime), they reluctantly agreed (again). ??? And people have gotten contradictory information, inconsistent price quotes, and misinformation (about the width of the bands, the stamp inside, etc.) and now the sub-par quality. IMVHO, a company that has that many problems has no right to be even the least bit snooty. At least Tiffany's has their act together!
2.gif
1.gif
9.gif
 
Lynn, I''m pretty sure you''re remembering things correctly about Sunkist.
 
Date: 10/17/2006 5:40:44 PM
Author: Ellen

Lynn, I''m pretty sure you''re remembering things correctly about Sunkist.
Thanks, Ellen. I really appreciate the vote of confidence. Believe me, the mind is a terrible thing to lose!!!
2.gif
1.gif
9.gif
 
Date: 10/17/2006 5:37:31 PM
Author: Lynn B

Date: 10/17/2006 5:26:27 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Lynn, I''d have to say they were nice to me. I think the stone approval thing is equivalent to the fact that Tiffany doesn''t have stones less than I VS2. I realize they could never be as exclusive as Tiffany''s, but I can see that they might want to have some sort of cut off or else they could find themselves setting average cut, K, I1''s in their formerly fine setting. I think Beaudry and some other designers are the same way with not stamping the ring when you provide the stone. So I don''t see anything wrong with that. They really didn''t give me any problem about my stone. But that''s all I can say. I stopped, thank goodness, before experiencing the trauma Dem and now Sunkist are having.
Yes, I do see what you are saying.

I was mainly thinking about the inconsistencies, though... if memory serves me (which is not guaranteed!
2.gif
) Lockes said yes to Sunkist''s stone, then reneged, then after she pressed it a little (and was so worried in the meantime), they reluctantly agreed (again). ??? And people have gotten contradictory information, inconsistent price quotes, and misinformation (about the width of the bands, the stamp inside, etc.) and now the sub-par quality. IMVHO, a company that has that many problems has no right to be even the least bit snooty. At least Tiffany''s has their act together!
2.gif
1.gif
9.gif
This is true, but Sunkist did not proceed with the setting within 30 days of getting her quote. I do not think an agreement including price can be good indefinitely. I think she waited a couple of months and by then they had changed the policy. I do agree with her challenging the decision and am glad they agreed to set her beautiful stone. The statement about the stamp was inconsistent and was obviously not relayed to the setting maker. I''m not defending them at all, but I do want to be fair to steer the criticism to the real problem area, and that seems to be in the quality of the setting. I still am thinking with all these firings, the craftsman making the ring may have left and no one else can make it!
 
Hi,

I have already posted on Sunkist''s thread but for others who wondered-- I personally have not had a problem with my Locke''s setting but I do think it''s awful what Demelza has had to go through. I understand the reluctance after giving them a chance once already but hopefully the situation works out.

I can only say that of course there has been problems with any and all designers we use since people have had quality complaints with everyone from Tiffany''s to WF to Leon Mege so it does seem inescapable. However, no matter what it is really unfortunate and I''d be really upset as well.

Demelza, I think it is important that you do post your experience here so don''t feel bad. Not to bring up bad feelings but this is good for consumers to know both the good and bad and why I was so upset when Matatora got such bad responses when she had an experience with WF. From a happy Locke''s client, I only appreciate you posting what you are going through bc it could have been any of us and would have caused any of us grief.

Diamondlove

p.s. As for Lockes'' attitude, they have always been nice when I spoke to them on the phone so no snobbiness to report!
 
Date: 10/17/2006 5:10:35 PM
Author: Ellen

...and at least you ... are out no money.
You know, Ellen, I bet she IS out money.
23.gif
23.gif
23.gif
And wouldn''t THAT be a kick in the pants?! She had shipping costs (several times back and forth), and Rich''s appraisal, no? Or did Lockes reimburse her for those costs? Oooohhhhh, Dem.... ?!!
 
Diamondlove, good to hear from you and I am soooo glad that your setting is perfect! YAY!

And yes, you are all right that snootiness or snobbiness really isn''t the issue here, and I am glad to hear that Lockes has in general been pleasant to deal with.
 
Demelza - I''m so sorry you had to go thru so much craziness w/the Lockes setting, but I''m glad it was resolved... Thank you for posting about this, because it ''s always important to get everyone''s reviews of particular vendors, good, bad, or indifferent!
 
Date: 10/17/2006 5:59:39 PM
Author: Lynn B

Date: 10/17/2006 5:10:35 PM
Author: Ellen

...and at least you ... are out no money.
You know, Ellen, I bet she IS out money.
23.gif
23.gif
23.gif
And wouldn''t THAT be a kick in the pants?! She had shipping costs (several times back and forth), and Rich''s appraisal, no? Or did Lockes reimburse her for those costs? Oooohhhhh, Dem.... ?!!
Ew, I didn''t think about that...

And I hear ya on the mind thing, I''m there.
9.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top